9Patch wrote:

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Doesn't bode well for the 77X either.

Doesn't bode well for the A350-1000 either.

Not really. If we look at Etihad's previous order from Airbus. Etihad order 64 A350. They cancel all 40 A350-900 and 2 A350-1000. They didn't announced that they are canceling 17 A350-1000. But the fact that they said they only gonna take 5 A350 means that the other 17 are canceled. So this cancellation would be anticipated by Airbus since last year.

5 A350-1000 is a tiny number. This isn't a big problem for A350 program. The plane is there, even if -1000 only sells 200 frames, they already make their profits from the smaller -900 anyway.

B777X on the other hand though. None of the models actually brings in much money yet. The -8 isn't selling and -9 is getting cancelled right and left.

ewt340 wrote:

9Patch wrote:

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Doesn't bode well for the 77X either.

Doesn't bode well for the A350-1000 either.

Not really. If we look at Etihad's previous order from Airbus. Etihad order 64 A350. They cancel all 40 A350-900 and 2 A350-1000. They didn't announced that they are canceling 17 A350-1000. But the fact that they said they only gonna take 5 A350 means that the other 17 are canceled. So this cancellation would be anticipated by Airbus since last year.

5 A350-1000 is a tiny number. This isn't a big problem for A350 program. The plane is there, even if -1000 only sells 200 frames, they already make their profits from the smaller -900 anyway.

B777X on the other hand though. None of the models actually brings in much money yet. The -8 isn't selling and -9 is getting cancelled right and left.

I like to see the right and left you’re talking about because EK reduced their order. That Cathay story, last we heard they hadn’t even gone to Boeing about it. It was just being discussed internally. People are so desperate for the 777X to end up like the A380. Sad really. But unfortunately they are not the same class of aircraft. The A350-1000 sits about 30 less passengers than the 777X so I don’t know what is so “much smaller” about it. I think they will both do great. Both fantastic in their own right. The reality of the situation I’ve come to realise with Airbus is their cost base. Boeing seems to be able to offer a much better deal on their aircrafts. The A35K will obviously burn less fuel than the 777X and Boeing knows this. But it doesn’t have to for it to be competitive. The A380 is the REAL VLA and nothing else compares to its size

I see the retirement of the A380 as both a macro and micro initiative to match capacity with expected demand post Covid-19.

On the Macro side, by retiring the A380 early airlines (as a whole) have made a quick and rather substantial cut to the seats available in the market post Covid-19.

On the micro side, retiring whole fleets of the A380 not only allows individual airlines to match capacity with demand in the markets they serve, it also allows the airlines to be more agile whilst at the same time simplifying their fleets and crew resources.

......and for the OEM’s, retiring entire fleets of aircraft helps them secure their order books into the future. If air travel takes 3 years to recover to 2019 levels, airlines will need to replace the retired A380’s with new aircraft over a very short period of time.

My rough count suggests approximately 90 A380’s will be retired, along with 15-20 747’s 15-20 A330-600’s, 25-30 767’s, 25 777’s and an unspecified number of older generation A330’s. In all cases we could argue these retirements also allowed airlines to simplify their fleets.

i think that would be a slightly good idea. less types to operate. a320 family for short haul/regional, 787 for medium/long haul, and 777/777x for long haul. even though the a350 is very efficient, it would be just an extra type, which is not a good idea for an airline that is already struggling. even getting rid of the 777x order and replacing it for more 787s would be better

I guess the 5 Etihad 3510s are paid for. Hence the term "abandon". Or "fly tipped" maybe??!!

My reasoning for why Etihad will most likely stick to the 777X and break from the 350 is very simple and it has nothing to do with the performance of the aircraft:

1. One of the reasons etihad couldn’t take their 350s was due to lack of crew able to operate them (apparently)...so i don’t think that would be easier now even...it will be a serious outlier

2. They have a strong Boeing fleet and especially a strong 77W fleet. They may not be in a position to take the 779 now...but much later down the line when those 77Ws age and they need to go they can turn to the 779..so they’ll be heavily deferred. Maybe delivery from about 2025 really.

3. It’s cheaper for them to operate an all Boeing fleet. The 777X has high commonality with the 787 which will make an easier introduction into the fleet.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I guess the 5 Etihad 3510s are paid for. Hence the term "abandon". Or "fly tipping" maybe??!!

Yes they’ve been paid for. Those planes are marked as delivered by Airbus

QF could make very good use of those 5 A350-1000. They don´t have enough 787 to replace 747s and possibly a380 (depending on whatever decision they take) and there is a huge gap beetween 787 capacity to 747 or A380 capacity. I know that right now they don´t need 300-350 passenger aircraft but in 3-6 months, routes as SYD-LAX and adding as demand recovers Tokyo, Hong Kong or any other 747/A388 flown route, the A351 would make a good job. Also, it makes sense as they were in talks to airbus for an A350 order for project sunrise.... those Etihad A351 will be delivered faster than any new order for Airbus (2023 at least)

Do the EY A350s have seats and galleys installed, presumably easier to move on if they are clean shells?

Opus99 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

9Patch wrote:

Doesn't bode well for the A350-1000 either.

Not really. If we look at Etihad's previous order from Airbus. Etihad order 64 A350. They cancel all 40 A350-900 and 2 A350-1000. They didn't announced that they are canceling 17 A350-1000. But the fact that they said they only gonna take 5 A350 means that the other 17 are canceled. So this cancellation would be anticipated by Airbus since last year.

5 A350-1000 is a tiny number. This isn't a big problem for A350 program. The plane is there, even if -1000 only sells 200 frames, they already make their profits from the smaller -900 anyway.

B777X on the other hand though. None of the models actually brings in much money yet. The -8 isn't selling and -9 is getting cancelled right and left.

I like to see the right and left you’re talking about because EK reduced their order. That Cathay story, last we heard they hadn’t even gone to Boeing about it. It was just being discussed internally. People are so desperate for the 777X to end up like the A380. Sad really. But unfortunately they are not the same class of aircraft. The A350-1000 sits about 30 less passengers than the 777X so I don’t know what is so “much smaller” about it. I think they will both do great. Both fantastic in their own right. The reality of the situation I’ve come to realise with Airbus is their cost base. Boeing seems to be able to offer a much better deal on their aircrafts. The A35K will obviously burn less fuel than the 777X and Boeing knows this. But it doesn’t have to for it to be competitive. The A380 is the REAL VLA and nothing else compares to its size

Well of course many of the changes are not finalized yet. But if we look at this article about Etihad and their paid A350-1000 and compared it to CX position on B777X. It's all still in the work. None of the are finalized.

A350-1000 is smaller compared to 10-abreast B777-300ER. And B777-9 is larger that B777-300ER. The seat count difference between B777X and A350-1000 would be close to 50 seats rather than 30 seats. B777-9 have similar capacity to B747.

B777-9 is a VLA, like it or not. And they are on the chopping block. Emirates reducing their orders is the kiss of death already.

Opus99 wrote:

The 777X has high commonality with the 787 which will make an easier introduction into the fleet.

Crew and operation-wise there's some truth in this, but component-wise there's close to zero commonality between the 777 and 787 airframes and interiors. Even the fasteners are different.

Gbass21 wrote:

QF could make very good use of those 5 A350-1000. They don´t have enough 787 to replace 747s and possibly a380 (depending on whatever decision they take) and there is a huge gap beetween 787 capacity to 747 or A380 capacity. I know that right now they don´t need 300-350 passenger aircraft but in 3-6 months, routes as SYD-LAX and adding as demand recovers Tokyo, Hong Kong or any other 747/A388 flown route, the A351 would make a good job. Also, it makes sense as they were in talks to airbus for an A350 order for project sunrise.... those Etihad A351 will be delivered faster than any new order for Airbus (2023 at least)

I'm not sure. QF seems happy using 789s instead of their 744s. They also seem to want to keep their a380s for a while for specific routes.

Now, depending on what happens with Project Sunrise (if any thing), then yes, the a35K might fit in.

Gbass21 wrote:

QF could make very good use of those 5 A350-1000. They don´t have enough 787 to replace 747s and possibly a380 (depending on whatever decision they take) and there is a huge gap beetween 787 capacity to 747 or A380 capacity. I know that right now they don´t need 300-350 passenger aircraft but in 3-6 months, routes as SYD-LAX and adding as demand recovers Tokyo, Hong Kong or any other 747/A388 flown route, the A351 would make a good job. Also, it makes sense as they were in talks to airbus for an A350 order for project sunrise.... those Etihad A351 will be delivered faster than any new order for Airbus (2023 at least)

I'm not sure. QF seems happy using 789s instead of their 744s. They also seem to want to keep their a380s for a while for specific routes.

Now, depending on what happens with Project Sunrise (if any thing), then yes, the a35K might fit in.

Maybe Delta has some use for these A350-1000s? Corona isnt forever and the -1000s maybe bring the extra performance needed for the longest 777 flights.

Opus99 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I like to see the right and left you’re talking about because EK reduced their order. That Cathay story, last we heard they hadn’t even gone to Boeing about it. It was just being discussed internally. People are so desperate for the 777X to end up like the A380. Sad really. But unfortunately they are not the same class of aircraft. The A350-1000 sits about 30 less passengers than the 777X so I don’t know what is so “much smaller” about it. I think they will both do great. Both fantastic in their own right. The reality of the situation I’ve come to realise with Airbus is their cost base. Boeing seems to be able to offer a much better deal on their aircrafts. The A35K will obviously burn less fuel than the 777X and Boeing knows this. But it doesn’t have to for it to be competitive. The A380 is the REAL VLA and nothing else compares to its size

Well of course many of the changes are not finalized yet. But if we look at this article about Etihad and their paid A350-1000 and compared it to CX position on B777X. It's all still in the work. None of the are finalized.

A350-1000 is smaller compared to 10-abreast B777-300ER. And B777-9 is larger that B777-300ER. The seat count difference between B777X and A350-1000 would be close to 50 seats rather than 30 seats. B777-9 have similar capacity to B747.

B777-9 is a VLA, like it or not. And they are on the chopping block. Emirates reducing their orders is the kiss of death already.

Arguing with you will make me lose brain cells because you’re so hot on the 777-9 being a failure you fail to see the massive hole in your argument. If the 777-9 goes down, the 35¥ goes with it and vice versa and neither are going down. The 35K can’t seem to crack 200 orders maybe it had the kiss of death 6 years ago? Please your argument is so flawed

No, no, you don't get it. Read again what I wrote.

The reason why B777-9 is on danger is because many airlines are looking at the alternatives like A350 or B787 for their operations. This pandemic make the situation worsen. Emirates which is their largest costumer reduce their orders for the plane. There's a discussion on how Cathay might swapped it for B787. And Etihad had reduced its own order as well.

As for Etihad, I don't see how B777-9 be useful for them. They got a lot of young B777-300ER. And they need to reduce capacity to get into profit again. Not increasing capacity.

For now, both A350-1000 and B777-9 would be considered a failure. We'll see in couple of years how they're going to do.

ewt340 wrote:

9Patch wrote:

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Doesn't bode well for the 77X either.

Doesn't bode well for the A350-1000 either.

Not really. If we look at Etihad's previous order from Airbus. Etihad order 64 A350. They cancel all 40 A350-900 and 2 A350-1000. They didn't announced that they are canceling 17 A350-1000. But the fact that they said they only gonna take 5 A350 means that the other 17 are canceled. So this cancellation would be anticipated by Airbus since last year.

5 A350-1000 is a tiny number. This isn't a big problem for A350 program. The plane is there, even if -1000 only sells 200 frames, they already make their profits from the smaller -900 anyway.

B777X on the other hand though. None of the models actually brings in much money yet. The -8 isn't selling and -9 is getting cancelled right and left.

the 777-8 isn't selling because there are none TO sell. the -8 is probably akin to the -300 but with a damn lot of range with that folding Wingtip. Whether anyone EVER needs the -9? They might very well want or need the -8.

Opus99 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I guess the 5 Etihad 3510s are paid for. Hence the term "abandon". Or "fly tipping" maybe??!!

Yes they’ve been paid for. Those planes are marked as delivered by Airbus

If they're paid for already. The a35k is some 21% more efficient than operating the 77W.

If also they have their seats installed which is the big question, it doesn't make any sense to abandon the a35k. to me the more operationally expensive 77W should be the one retired, take the a380 crew or the former a340 crew and train them on the a350. its likely those 77w won't be filled at all and will be more expensive to operate versus the a35K.

randomdude83 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I guess the 5 Etihad 3510s are paid for. Hence the term "abandon". Or "fly tipping" maybe??!!

Yes they’ve been paid for. Those planes are marked as delivered by Airbus

If they're paid for already. The a35k is some 21% more efficient than operating the 77W.

If also they have their seats installed which is the big question, it doesn't make any sense to abandon the a35k. to me the more operationally expensive 77W should be the one retired, take the a380 crew or the former a340 crew and train them on the a350. its likely those 77w won't be filled at all and will be more expensive to operate versus the a35K.

They still need to pay the finance back on the aircraft I believe. It’s been paid for via financing, so the facility still needs to be paid back

So if Etihad does ground their A380s permanently, that's the end of the Residences right? We'll likely never see anything like it in a commercial aircraft ever again? Plus with even Emirates reportedly already considering retiring at least some of their A380s, it makes me wonder if inflight showers have any future in commercial aviation. If anything, I'm surprised that neither of them have installed showers on their 777s yet.

filipinoavgeek wrote:

So if Etihad does ground their A380s permanently, that's the end of the Residences right? We'll likely never see anything like it in a commercial aircraft ever again? Plus with even Emirates reportedly already considering retiring at least some of their A380s, it makes me wonder if inflight showers have any future in commercial aviation. If anything, I'm surprised that neither of them have installed showers on their 777s yet.

How popular were inflight showers?
I assume they were limited to passengers who booked first class suites.
Did you have to wear a seat belt while showering?
I'd hate to be all soaped up and slippery when you hit turbulence.

9Patch wrote:

filipinoavgeek wrote:

So if Etihad does ground their A380s permanently, that's the end of the Residences right? We'll likely never see anything like it in a commercial aircraft ever again? Plus with even Emirates reportedly already considering retiring at least some of their A380s, it makes me wonder if inflight showers have any future in commercial aviation. If anything, I'm surprised that neither of them have installed showers on their 777s yet.

How popular were inflight showers?
I assume they were limited to passengers who booked first class suites.

They were very popular among flight reviews and others who did use them. Also, first class isn't limited to the 777. In fact I think at least one other airline (Emirates?) already has a bar on some of its 777s, a feature that is more associated with the A380. It probably shouldn't be too hard to install a shower on a 777 if someone wanted to, but perhaps it doesn't make economic sense.

Discuss the topic, not other users. This is your warning.

Antarius wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

Jefford717 wrote:

Understandable. Why add another type of aircraft in your fleet when demand isn’t there?

Any idea what’s going to happen to the 5 A350-1000 that are already built but never put to service?

Travel IS going to recover, the question is when. With A380s and 747s gone there will be a place for the A3510 and the 779, and 5 shiny new A3510s will find a home somewhere. Meanwhile hordes of lawyers will find gainful if not productive employment fighting over their fate.

I could see CX taking them eventually.

Why?

They are working on streamlining their fleet, absorbing HK Express and the ongoing issues now and in the future with HK/China. Just curious why they'd pick up A380s

randomdude83 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I guess the 5 Etihad 3510s are paid for. Hence the term "abandon". Or "fly tipping" maybe??!!

Yes they’ve been paid for. Those planes are marked as delivered by Airbus

If they're paid for already. The a35k is some 21% more efficient than operating the 77W.

If also they have their seats installed which is the big question, it doesn't make any sense to abandon the a35k. to me the more operationally expensive 77W should be the one retired, take the a380 crew or the former a340 crew and train them on the a350. its likely those 77w won't be filled at all and will be more expensive to operate versus the a35K.

The reason is that they have a lot more 777's than A350's and most if not all of that 21% in efficiency is eaten up by having a very small fleet of another type (crews, spares, parts etc.). Seems like Covid is finally teaching many airlines what LUV and all of their imitators like Ryanair have been trying to teach them forever about fleet simplicity.

as739x wrote:

Antarius wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

Travel IS going to recover, the question is when. With A380s and 747s gone there will be a place for the A3510 and the 779, and 5 shiny new A3510s will find a home somewhere. Meanwhile hordes of lawyers will find gainful if not productive employment fighting over their fate.

I could see CX taking them eventually.

Why?

They are working on streamlining their fleet, absorbing HK Express and the ongoing issues now and in the future with HK/China. Just curious why they'd pick up A380s

I was referring to the stored a35K, not the a380.

They currently have a350-1000s and as part of their longhaul fleet renewal and transition to the a350, they would fit in nicely.

mxaxai wrote:

Jefford717 wrote:

Any idea what’s going to happen to the 5 A350-1000 that are already built but never put to service?

Maybe scrap for spare parts? Store indefinitely in a nice dry place? Not many other customers for the -1000.

What about lease to another airline?

A necessary first step at adjusting fleet size.

https://www.ttrweekly.com/site/2020/04/ ... echnology/

I wonder if this will help them get customers or steer them away. After all there are many people, myself included, who'd do anything not to have their blood pressure or heart rate tested. (White Collar Syndrome)

Also will other airlines follow suit??

There is no way I will subject myself to this. They even make use of Amazon in the process. Not only do I risk having my health data sold to insurance companies, but I will be spammed by Amazon as well.

Yes make the passengers touch the screen as much as possible to pick up whatever virus is left on it.

And people are saying demand will be back quickly. If those measures become standard, many will avoid flying.

SEPilot wrote:

With A380s and 747s gone there will be a place for the A3510 and the 779, and 5 shiny new A3510s will find a home somewhere. Meanwhile hordes of lawyers will find gainful if not productive employment fighting over their fate.

Comment of the week - well done!

Jetport wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Yes they’ve been paid for. Those planes are marked as delivered by Airbus

If they're paid for already. The a35k is some 21% more efficient than operating the 77W.

If also they have their seats installed which is the big question, it doesn't make any sense to abandon the a35k. to me the more operationally expensive 77W should be the one retired, take the a380 crew or the former a340 crew and train them on the a350. its likely those 77w won't be filled at all and will be more expensive to operate versus the a35K.

The reason is that they have a lot more 777's than A350's and most if not all of that 21% in efficiency is eaten up by having a very small fleet of another type (crews, spares, parts etc.).

And how many 77Ws do they actually need in a Post Pandemic world? Retire the 77Ws and replace the 77W flying with the five A350s and all the many 787-9/10s they have on order. Retire the A380s too.

I can't see the 777-9 having much of a future with the airline. They don't need them, can't afford them and will never be able to finance (at a reasonable rate) such an illiquid asset - lessors won't be interested. Even if they didn't have any 777-9s in their order book, the large backlog of 787 orders is more than enough for them.

zkojq wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

With A380s and 747s gone there will be a place for the A3510 and the 779, and 5 shiny new A3510s will find a home somewhere. Meanwhile hordes of lawyers will find gainful if not productive employment fighting over their fate.

Comment of the week - well done!

Jetport wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

If they're paid for already. The a35k is some 21% more efficient than operating the 77W.

If also they have their seats installed which is the big question, it doesn't make any sense to abandon the a35k. to me the more operationally expensive 77W should be the one retired, take the a380 crew or the former a340 crew and train them on the a350. its likely those 77w won't be filled at all and will be more expensive to operate versus the a35K.

The reason is that they have a lot more 777's than A350's and most if not all of that 21% in efficiency is eaten up by having a very small fleet of another type (crews, spares, parts etc.).

And how many 77Ws do they actually need in a Post Pandemic world? Retire the 77Ws and replace the 77W flying with the five A350s and all the many 787-9/10s they have on order. Retire the A380s too.

I can't see the 777-9 having much of a future with the airline. They don't need them, can't afford them and will never be able to finance (at a reasonable rate) such an illiquid asset - lessors won't be interested. Even if they didn't have any 777-9s in their order book, the large backlog of 787 orders is more than enough for them.

And where’s the economical sense in operating 5 A350s? It’s not a matter of how many 77Ws you need, it’s a matter of as Etihad is now. Which one makes more sense to operate? They’ve just done a huge sale and leaseback of the 77Ws so they can’t walk out of those leases easily. An aircraft like that you need to double digits at the very least for it to make size to a carrier the size of Etihad. They don’t have the money to pay for the 779 which is why it has been significantly deferred. They will want them eventually to replace the 77W and A380. I don’t think they’ll take the 8 778s but 17 779s starting from 2025/2026 seems apt to me. This 779 outlook I mean, everybody has an opinion for an aircraft that hasn’t even been given a chance to see whether it will perform as expected and if it doesn’t then we can sign it off. The A35K is fantastic but it’s not for everybody please neither is the 779 too. The large wide body market will be split between them, depending on the kind of routes you serve.

The ME 3, including Eithad, have to do significant rationalization of their fleets and business models to survive the Pandemic's sudden collapse of business and likely longer term (1-4 years) lower demand. Eventually the financial advantages the ME 3 have will decline, labor costs will go up, many will not want to transit through the ME 3's hubs as more direct flights via non-ME 3 airlines and likely growing competition from China based airliners with advantages of low labor and other costs.

Frankly, I don't think EY will survive Covid-19. So we can say goodbye to all their aircraft in the next year or two.

Agreed. They were a basket case with no clear strategy even at good times. What’s the reason for Etihad’s existance? Abu Dhabi is small and could very well be served by literally anyone else in the region.

flee wrote:

Frankly, I don't think EY will survive Covid-19. So we can say goodbye to all their aircraft in the next year or two.

On this case. I can envisage a shrink of both Emirates and Etihad and then a merger

calstanford wrote:

What’s the reason for Etihad’s existance? Abu Dhabi is small and could very well be served by literally anyone else in the region.

Etihad serves the same role to Abu Dhabi as Emirates does for Dubai, to assist in growing the city and economy by attracting business, expats and tourists. I agree that they are a poorly run basket case, but without a dedicated airline, Abu Dhabi would likely have been relegated to a secondary city on the outskirts of Dubai. Contrary to the name, they aren't as United as they probably should be in this case.

Had they been more cooperative, a HSR line from DXB to Abu Dhabi center could have whisked travellers there in some 35 minutes, 25 minutes from Al Makhtoum.

flee wrote:

Frankly, I don't think EY will survive Covid-19. So we can say goodbye to all their aircraft in the next year or two.

Indeed. EY also deferred a large chunk of its 787 deliveries. The aircraft may never get delivered.

The fact that DWC development has been so slow in recent years show also the real prospect of (not) merging EK and EY. They can and are currently increasing their cooperation, DNATA for instance is more involved now in EY's business and EY maintenance facility supports EK also, but it won't reach the level of route harmonization and fleet commonality.
EY will remain, as mentioned above as an airline serving the population of Abu Dhabi and supporting the economy of the city, it should probably be smaller, with 787 and A320s, and just optimize this network.

A330Inter wrote:

EY will remain, as mentioned above as an airline serving the population of Abu Dhabi and supporting the economy of the city, it should probably be smaller, with 787 and A320s, and just optimize this network.

Gulf Air could be a role model. A small 787 fleet of ~10-20 aircraft to serve key destinations in Europe, North America and Asia, and a bunch of A320s for regional connectivity.

Ironically, James Hogan was CEO of both airlines, and both shrunk signficantly after he left (as did every other airline he touched).

randomdude83 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I guess the 5 Etihad 3510s are paid for. Hence the term "abandon". Or "fly tipping" maybe??!!

Yes they’ve been paid for. Those planes are marked as delivered by Airbus

If they're paid for already. The a35k is some 21% more efficient than operating the 77W.

If also they have their seats installed which is the big question, it doesn't make any sense to abandon the a35k. to me the more operationally expensive 77W should be the one retired, take the a380 crew or the former a340 crew and train them on the a350. its likely those 77w won't be filled at all and will be more expensive to operate versus the a35K.

It kind of make sense for now. It's the newest widebody aircraft in the world right now. Extremely efficient and have higher chance of being bought rather than aircraft like B777-200ER.

What they could do is to sell it Leasing companies and wet-leased it or just sells it to other airlines who operated A350 like SQ or QR.

Luckily it's only 5 of them. It shouldn't be that hard.

I consider that both B787 and A350 / A33N creates a lot of problems for ME3.

They can fly from destinations in Europe directly to destinations in Asia with better efficiency then the A380 and B777 that ME3 built its business model around.

It almost feels like their day in the sunshine is coming to an end, where they will be "just another" airline rather than this existential threat or higher luxury brand. And as with many things times change, as technology changes and travel patterns adjust, they are becoming just another mundane entity.

olle wrote:

I consider that both B787 and A350 / A33N creates a lot of problems for ME3.

They can fly from destinations in Europe directly to destinations in Asia with better efficiency then the A380 and B777 that ME3 built its business model around.

Well said. A stopover is unnecessary for a sub 10 hour mission, it actually adds more time to the trip.

From the fleet utilization perspective, an airline doing daily Asia-Europe round trips on 9 hr missions has better utilization than 2-4hour Asia and 6-7hours Europe round trips.

randomdude83 wrote:

If also they have their seats installed which is the big question...

I asked that question in another thread and I think the answer is that they are just empty shells.

calstanford wrote:

Agreed. They were a basket case with no clear strategy even at good times. What’s the reason for Etihad’s existance? Abu Dhabi is small and could very well be served by literally anyone else in the region.

This shows complete lack of understanding of regional political dynamics within the UAE and other neighbouring countries!

VSMUT wrote:

calstanford wrote:

What’s the reason for Etihad’s existance? Abu Dhabi is small and could very well be served by literally anyone else in the region.

Etihad serves the same role to Abu Dhabi as Emirates does for Dubai, to assist in growing the city and economy by attracting business, expats and tourists. I agree that they are a poorly run basket case, but without a dedicated airline, Abu Dhabi would likely have been relegated to a secondary city on the outskirts of Dubai. Contrary to the name, they aren't as United as they probably should be in this case.

Had they been more cooperative, a HSR line from DXB to Abu Dhabi center could have whisked travellers there in some 35 minutes, 25 minutes from Al Makhtoum.

Seriously?...an airline per city is the principle here?...because Abu Dhabi is not a secondary, relegated city?...

Let’s be realistic...EY is Abu Dhabi rulers’ economic toy...so they can pretend they can play like the big boys...


Faro

SueD wrote:

calstanford wrote:

Agreed. They were a basket case with no clear strategy even at good times. What’s the reason for Etihad’s existance? Abu Dhabi is small and could very well be served by literally anyone else in the region.

This shows complete lack of understanding of regional political dynamics within the UAE and other neighbouring countries!

Political dynamics cannot create a viable business plan.

calstanford actually has a rational point, if an airline doesn't have a clear strategy in this highly competitive business, they will just destroy cash as Etihad did in the past.
Etihad must compete with Qatar, Emirates/FlyDubai, Turkish & Pegasus, Air Arabia, and the horde of Indian airlines to/from the subcontinent.

Emirates started (regionally, copying the Singapore model in many ways) the mega connecting strategy. By having first mover advantage in a, at then, underserved region, EK was able to establish a route network that drove demand and allowed for great cost control helping to fill A380s. At first to select destinations, but later their strategy of having 20 people from each flight connecting to each of 100+ destinations allowed A380 service to cities I personally wouldn't have predicted in late 2000 when the A380 was launched.

One cannot ignore the strategy of opening up Dubai to appeal to more business. Allowing any company to come in, buy into real estate (corporate and housing), with beaches open to Western, reasonable 'blue laws', allowing supermarket chains to establish to cater to people's preferences, copying (in my opinion) Irvine California's zoning for religious buildings, allowing London law and hiring retired London judges, the trade zones, and don't forget that harbor allowing Dubai to be the distribution center of the Mid-East which enables cargo. While right now Dubai being the home port for multiple cruise ships is not of help, it will be again soon.

Air Arabia introduced the LCC to the region. FlyDubai copied with the advantage of EK connections and a far larger O&D market.

Qatar copied EK and become the second choice. However, Dubai seems to have a clear advantage in cargo distribution which is, in my opinion, a profit differentiation. Qatar tried to attract Western business, but just hasn't to the degree of Dubai.

The growth in Turkish aviation has been amazing. With high O&D and the new airport (which I think we can agree needs the 3rd runway to cut taxi times, a runway that opens up soon), this creates a new competitor with interesting political implications that quickly go off topic.

The airlines of India are handicapped by high fuel taxes and processes that often separate connections that heavily reduce competitiveness.

This leaves too little left for EY. EK has the Qantas code share that helps fill A380s to Europe. While Indian airlines fly to all ME3, EK has the demand for forward connections on a high frequency network which means that customers get to fly when they are willing to pay for.

Connecting airlines increase yield by connecting everywhere to everywhere at high frequency. This is a huge part of Delta's model at Atlanta and unfortunately, EY is behind EK, TK, and QR. I don't know how to create a profitable business plan being #4.

I didn't mention Ethiopian, but they have certainly cut opportunities in Africa too.

Just doing quick Bing searches for "airline name destinations"
Emirates: 161 destinations. Some destinations have extremely high frequency allowing for easy connections.
Turkish: 288 destinations
Qatar: 168 destinations
Etihad: 156 destinations (much lower frequencies)

Etihad has no clear niche. Thus, they have no clear strategy. Because of this, they didn't make a profit during the good years. Now that it is the bad times, they must shrink and simplify the fleet. While Dubai's tourist O&D will take time to recover, it will recover (a question of when, not if). Abu Dhabi didn't have a clear strategy to drive up O&D traffic.

There is a surplus of one if not two hubbing airlines in the region. I would bet against the airlines that were losing money in the good years.

Lightsaber

We may still see an EK / EY merger. Say a sort of reverse takeover to save face. EY buys EK (Abu Dhabi has the cash whereas Dubai does not) but EK mangement runs the combined unit. The EK strategy would then drive a combined UAE airline business strategy going forward.